“The scientific method is the sole path by which we can attain to knowledge. The very word ‘knowledge’ indeed only applies to the products of the scientific method in the field. Other methods… may lead to fantasy as that of the poet or metaphysician, to belief or superstition, but never to knowledge.” (Karl Pearson, The Grammar of Science, 1896)

A belief in total objectivity for the purpose of obtaining absolute certainty has resulted in the tyranny of scientism leading to dehumanization. Scientism reduces reality to only that which can be validated by the scientific method. Since the existence of human minds is not scientifically verifiable, the scientific method, in its objective pursuit of certain knowledge, has completely depersonalized and thus dehumanized truth and reality. It posits a world in which Nature is supreme and human persons are simply another expression of Nature.

The Vanishing Human

When the only valid type of knowledge is “objective” knowledge achieved through the scientific method, then all remaining knowledge is, by default, “subjective.” Since it has no relationship to the scientific method, subjective knowledge can make no claims to absolute certainty, and is, at best, suspect. Subjective knowledge is full of inherent biases, the influence of authoritarian traditions, and a whole assortment of “personal baggage” – baggage that is distasteful to the scientific method; persons only get in the way when it comes to objective knowledge!

Because scientific knowledge is the only knowledge grounded in impersonal objectivity, it is the only kind of knowledge that is true and conforms to reality. All other knowledge is simply an expression of personal tastes, preferences, and opinions. This includes knowledge pertaining to philosophy, religion, and metaphysics as well as poetry, art, and ethics.

This is the dehumanizing tyranny of scientism: scientism maintains its authority by claiming complete objectivity in regard to its discoveries. In the process, scientism effectively undermines all other truth-claims except its own. In contrast to the “certain” truths of science founded upon “objective” methods, the truths of all other fields of inquiry are relegated a place of insignificance.

The Hungarian scientist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi clearly recognized this problem and its dehumanizing aspects: “a passion for achieving absolutely impersonal knowledge, which, being unable to recognize any persons, presents us with a picture of the universe in which we ourselves are absent” (Drussila Scott, Everyman Revived: The Common Sense of Michael Polanyi, 20. All numbers in parentheses refer to this book).

How did the human person vanish? Once mankind established a secure basis (objective scientific methods) upon which to gather reliable information, another problem arose. Since the human mind is itself the product of Nature, it is ultimately suspect itself. We have no guarantee that we are actually interacting with reality through our minds for “no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational (simply natural) causes.” Since we are simply another part of Nature we have no inherent ability to ultimately transcend Nature. Without any objective ability to recognize a reality greater than Nature, our personal knowledge is limited to simple awareness of our own ideas. We can never be sure whether our ideas really “connect” with reality.[1] Thus, the very basis for our certainty in science has left us withered and despairing. If true knowledge must be completely objective and result in absolute certainty then true knowledge of reality is impossible.

Reclaiming the Human

Michael Polanyi offers a way out of this mess by arguing that all knowledge is “personal knowledge.” Total objectivity must be exposed for the myth that it is. Total objectivity is not possible for one simple reason: we always bring a person to every discovery. Indeed, without the presence of a person there would be no impetus for discovery in the first place. Only persons seek to understand reality.

Polanyi rightly understood that the unwarranted belief in total objectivity arose from an unachievable demand for absolute certainty in knowledge. If truth could be pursued without any authoritative constraints or personal biases (in other words, with complete objectivity), then one’s conclusions would be absolutely certain. This quest for absolute certainty led to the creation of the scientific method which was considered to be completely objective and unbiased – dealing only with “bare facts.” All other knowledge was deemed “subjective” – personally biased and thus, ultimately, mere opinion.

However, if complete and total objectivity is a myth, then subjectivity encompasses more than scientism allows. Indeed, all knowledge is revealed to be subjective because all knowledge involves a subject – a human person. Thus, all knowledge is personal knowledge.

Since complete and total “objectivity” is humanly unachievable it is unwarranted to bestow special privilege to only one type of knowledge – scientific knowledge. There is simply no basis upon which to do this. Likewise, it is not valid to relegate all so-called “subjective” knowledge to a secondary, insignificant, or invalid status.

Put simply, all knowledge is personal knowledge and all truth is personal truth – truth apprehended by a person. No “scientific facts” have special veto privilege over all other fields of knowledge. This personal knowledge extends beyond scientific truth and also embraces philosophy, religion, metaphysics, ethics, art, and poetry. Since no one inhabits a privileged place of complete objectivity, there are no “bare facts” that can be discovered impartially, without bias or personal intrusion, “for interpretation enters into all knowledge” (191).

The Human Revolution: Freedom from the Tyranny of Scientism

When people claim that complete objectivity and absolute certainty are possible, they unwittingly assent to the impersonal reductionism of the scientific worldview. They deny the personal element of knowledge in a desperate attempt to preserve absolute certainty. Indeed, some believe that to admit the impossibility of complete objectivity and absolute certainty is to embrace relativism and despair of intellectual assurance.

However, we need not fear exposing the myth of complete objectivity and absolute certainty. The awareness that all knowledge is personal knowledge is not the end of truth or assurance but the true beginning of the pursuit of both. Just because we cannot explore anything from a stance of complete objectivity does not mean that objective truth does not exist. “There are no bare facts, it is true, but there are facts” (191, italics mine). Simply because we can never attain to absolute certainty does not lead to total despair. Confidence and faith are born in such an environment.

When we strive for absolute certainty we run the risk of creating the illusion of the possibility of complete objectivity which ultimately leads to a depersonalization (a dehumanizing) of people. Faith is not absolute certainty in objective facts, but personal confidence in a personal God who engages with us, not in an object/object or object/subject relationship, but in a subject/subject – an “I/Thou” – relationship.

Michael Polanyi is right: most problems stem from “a wrong understanding of how we know things” (97). We must reject the tyranny of scientism and reconsider how we know what we know. We must reject the possibility of absolute certainty and pure objectivity and instead embrace the adventure of personal knowledge in a world that holds infinite possibilities for discovery. There is too much at stake to do otherwise: “if we believe that nothing is reliable knowledge unless it is clear and explicit and tested by experiment, then we cannot know anything about intangible things like justice, love, purity, compassion or beauty” (97). Even more, we cannot know God – who is all these things and more!

Polanyi returned prominence to human persons through his arguments for “personal knowledge.” He also restored the relevance of other fields of inquiry such as philosophy, religion, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics – fields that were undermined by the tyranny of scientism.

Polanyi’s arguments are also valuable in the most important field of knowledge, that is, theology, the “the science of God.” I believe that integrating Polanyi’s thoughts with the insights of great Christian thinkers of the past results in an epistemology that concurs with contemporary postmodern insights on the limitations of language and knowledge without completely abandoning the possibility of objective reality and personal confidence – in other words, an epistemology that does not lead to complete despair that language is no more than “word games” or assume that personal knowledge is nothing more than one’s opinion, tastes, and individual preferences with no relationship to truth or reality. It is this integration that I will pursue in my next essay.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2004